The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life. I happen think that's true *and* also reflected in the stories, but as far as the books go, it began as a children's story and 'love saves' has a nice hook when you're trying to sell it to publishers. /cynic
I think the answer lies in your assessment of the Malfoys and Albus. 'Love saved them [from Azkaban], although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.' So basically what I said above. (Which buggers some of the overarching aspects of 'love as a theme' in the books. It basically seems to be a 'nice to have' and a rallying cry.) And: 'Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful' would mean what matters in the end is what you *are/do*, and *not* that (or who) you loved, because love in that case was clearly bad. Albus improves *despite* it.
With Voldemort, I thought the key as he's described was to view him as a psychopath (and therefore apparently 'evil'), and effectively untreatable, and that part and parcel of his diagnosis is he is incapable of love. (Also: coercive union and magic!, obvs. (I liked that.)) So not that he is 'evil' *because* he is incapable of that emotion, but he is 'evil' and *thus* incapable, in addition to everything else, if the distinction makes sense? (But maybe that's a chicken / egg thing...) Still, it seems like a lack of empathy and conscience are bigger keys to making him 'evil' than an absence of love.
Harry I've had huge problems with, as he's a fairly selfish, self-absorbed asshat for much of the series (yes, mileage varies, and it's also not that I mind that characterisation per se). I'm not even convinced I felt his final sacrifice to be motivated by *love*. It was a huge thing, I'm not trying to take away from that, but on the other hand, is it as huge when you don't believe you'll survive anyway to seek to make your death more meaningful / useful? (Serious question: does that lessen or increase or not change the significance of the act? It's a bit like the argument that there can be no altruism...)
I also never felt Harry had such a great ability to love. His treatment of Hermione can be... ouch, let's go with 'poor', his behaviour towards his other friends, Cho... He's not a generous person (by which I don't just mean financially). I don't see a wealth of love in his actions. (Again, not a condemnation of the character. On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense given how he was raised.)
Isn't the 'amazing ability to love' just more of Dumbledore's crap? Just like: 'Severus, we shall sacrifice your soul, because it's of no import, but not Draco's, no no.' I always felt Albus says things to get *the response* he wants from people, not necessarily because he believes those things. (And even if he did, that doesn't make them true.)
I also don't think Dumbledore comes off as 'innately wonderful' in the books. Quite the opposite, because we're not given much of a chance to see Albus refute some of the things he said to Severus, he comes across as pretty terrible when you look behind the curtain. (Again, I'd bet the truth lies somewhere in between.) It's just that most people don't look behind that curtain. He's 'seen as the epitome of good' because he isn't truly *seen*.
I would, however, agree that's how a lot of characters (and readers) choose to see him. I think that was well presented, that some in 'verse people will be all about the Albus love. I find it a lot odder that many *readers* are. (But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2019-02-07 05:00 pm (UTC)The capacity for doing so makes you a better person, but not necessarily great or even good (that probably depends more on your morals and willingness to sacrifice vs. selfishness), and *actually* doing so depends on the circumstances of your life. I happen think that's true *and* also reflected in the stories, but as far as the books go, it began as a children's story and 'love saves' has a nice hook when you're trying to sell it to publishers. /cynic
I think the answer lies in your assessment of the Malfoys and Albus. 'Love saved them [from Azkaban], although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.' So basically what I said above. (Which buggers some of the overarching aspects of 'love as a theme' in the books. It basically seems to be a 'nice to have' and a rallying cry.) And: 'Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful' would mean what matters in the end is what you *are/do*, and *not* that (or who) you loved, because love in that case was clearly bad. Albus improves *despite* it.
With Voldemort, I thought the key as he's described was to view him as a psychopath (and therefore apparently 'evil'), and effectively untreatable, and that part and parcel of his diagnosis is he is incapable of love. (Also: coercive union and magic!, obvs. (I liked that.)) So not that he is 'evil' *because* he is incapable of that emotion, but he is 'evil' and *thus* incapable, in addition to everything else, if the distinction makes sense? (But maybe that's a chicken / egg thing...) Still, it seems like a lack of empathy and conscience are bigger keys to making him 'evil' than an absence of love.
Harry I've had huge problems with, as he's a fairly selfish, self-absorbed asshat for much of the series (yes, mileage varies, and it's also not that I mind that characterisation per se). I'm not even convinced I felt his final sacrifice to be motivated by *love*. It was a huge thing, I'm not trying to take away from that, but on the other hand, is it as huge when you don't believe you'll survive anyway to seek to make your death more meaningful / useful? (Serious question: does that lessen or increase or not change the significance of the act? It's a bit like the argument that there can be no altruism...)
I also never felt Harry had such a great ability to love. His treatment of Hermione can be... ouch, let's go with 'poor', his behaviour towards his other friends, Cho... He's not a generous person (by which I don't just mean financially). I don't see a wealth of love in his actions. (Again, not a condemnation of the character. On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense given how he was raised.)
Isn't the 'amazing ability to love' just more of Dumbledore's crap? Just like: 'Severus, we shall sacrifice your soul, because it's of no import, but not Draco's, no no.' I always felt Albus says things to get *the response* he wants from people, not necessarily because he believes those things. (And even if he did, that doesn't make them true.)
I also don't think Dumbledore comes off as 'innately wonderful' in the books. Quite the opposite, because we're not given much of a chance to see Albus refute some of the things he said to Severus, he comes across as pretty terrible when you look behind the curtain. (Again, I'd bet the truth lies somewhere in between.) It's just that most people don't look behind that curtain. He's 'seen as the epitome of good' because he isn't truly *seen*.
I would, however, agree that's how a lot of characters (and readers) choose to see him. I think that was well presented, that some in 'verse people will be all about the Albus love. I find it a lot odder that many *readers* are. (But that effect helps explain how people can love the Marauders, which I'll never get...)